wowwikifandomcom_pt_br-20200215-history
Predefinição Discussão:Tooltip
Documentation The template creates a WoW styled tooltip for items; you can supply any number of the named parameters to display specific text in the tooltip. Required Minimal Syntax Begin all item-page tooltips with the following three lines: } |arg= } The template parameters displayed here are required to enable item pages interact with other consumers of tooltip data, and do not change from page to page. Named parameters Rules for changing this template We desperately need to clearly describe the rules we are going to use for changing this template. Please put them here. --Fandyllic (talk · ) 6:47 PM PDT : For this specific template, the change should be suggested first on the talk page and agreed upon by several admins. Discussion on the IRC channel is likely, but the result of any discussion there should be posted here first. 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT) ::A good start, but I think we need to be more specific: ::*What are several admins? ::*Will notice of an upcoming change appear here before the change or after? After would be bad, but unless someone is actively watching this page, I guess its not a big deal. ::*Where will notice of the change be posted here? I recommend at the top, preferrably in a section called "Approved Changes". ::--Fandyllic (talk · ) 11:29 AM PDT 22 Mar 2007 = Discussion = Item Sets Integration Looking for feedback and input on this. The current way we implement Item Sets is a touch sloppy, but it worked with the previous Wiki software. I think it's time to readdress this at this time, however, and I think embedding it into the Tooltip (only to be displayed on the item page, not when included) is the way to go to draw the parallel to the in-game tooltip. I've come up with a few test articles for review: *User:Tusva/Dev/SetTemplate - New Template that generates Item Set Text *User:Tusva/Dev/Set - Example Item Set (embedded in Set Page, see User:Tusva/Dev/SetArticle) *User:Tusva/Dev/Tooltip - Updated version of Template:Tooltip to include embedding item set *User:Tusva/Dev/Item - Example Item Using Updated Tooltip Template *User:Tusva/Dev/SetArticle - Example of an embedded Armor Set on a reformatted armor set page. Ideally this would also initiate a re-evaluation of how we format Armor Set pages, both to include this set information with and to better present the information. I think that this solution is important as, at the least, it'd reduce the TONS of Set Templates we have swimming around (Category:Set_Table_Templates) each of which has a separate article about that set. Best to keep the info all in one place that distributing it around, don'tcha think? Anywho, I think this is worth looking into and coming up with a standard that isn't so bulky. -- TUSVA ~ T | 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC) : Looks good to me -- 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC) :: Any additional feedback? I'd like to start finalizing how we're going to implement these. -- TUSVA ~ T | 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC) ::: I'd rarther avoid a listing of set items in every item tooltip - instead include set name linking to the set page, and the number of items in the set (something like Set: Battlegear of Wrath (1/8)). You also seem to have a slight formatting issue with and non-spelllink set bonuses. -- Starlightblunder 00:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC) :::: I think it's important information to list the other pieces in the set as well as the set bonuses, just like they appear in-game, which is the entire point. It's rather worth the effort. -- TUSVA ~ T | 02:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC) :::::I dunno... I'm kinda' tending toward Star's idea, since if we include the items, the tooltips will get very long. My . -- 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC) :::I think there's a reasonable compromise in the current Template:Tooltip/Dev (see Template talk:Tooltip/Dev for examples). The short Set: Set Name (1/#) line is displayed if the item tooltip is transcluded, and the full set tooltip is displayed if the item is viewed on its page. There's a somewhat unrelated addition of disambigpage= that should fix display of tooltips on pages like Warglaive of Azzinoth (off hand). Is what's currently in Tooltip/Dev an acceptable compromise to everyone? --Starlightblunder 00:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Color for extra armor Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see how to mark increased armor value as green in some items' tooltips. Take a look at Tree-Mender's Belt for example -- for this ilvl it should have 196 armor, but some of the itemization points were spent for increased armor value, hence the green color here. Should we mark it in similar way to Wowhead or leave it as it is now? -- :Template:Tooltip/Dev implements this using bonusarmor= argument. Check out the demo on Template talk:Tooltip/Dev -- Starlightblunder 17:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC) A few changes in /Dev I've modified to fix three issues: * Unique and Unique-Equipped parameters currently do not handle 1 gracefully. (unique=1 results in "Unique (1)", dev version would give "Unique") * sockets= argument is ignored unless socket= is also set. I believe someone made a typo, since socket= is not used for anything other than to check whether we need to include sockets=. * There's no instancebind= parameter in current revision. Some items, like are bound to a specific instance - something that our tooltips don't reflect at the moment. Merge my changes? -- Starlightblunder 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC) ::I would suggest making the instanceBind variable a link, as there is most likely going to be an article with the same name as the zone. And if we're talking about an update to the template, I'd like my previous suggestion (two sections above) of embedding the set_name field so we can move forward on adding those to tooltips. -- TUSVA ~ T | 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC) :::I've added another tweak to the unique and unique-eq parameter handling to /Dev (this removes the empty brackets we have currently appearing where no unique/unique-eq value has been specifies), as well as short set and setpc parameters for sets. Check it out the demo at Template talk:Tooltip/Dev and if you're okay with the new set stuff, we should merge it again soon. -- Starlightblunder 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC) ::::I have updated the Unique fixes, should see if there is anyone has feedback about the item set. -- 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Source 'Source' should be added. I realize this has been mentioned before in the archives, but I would like to see it happen eventually. --Cisox 18:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC) :It was actually removed when we initiated parser functions. Tbh, that information should already be on the page, and in much fuller detail. -- 20:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC) ::For most cases, Sky, I'd throw in with you. Devil's advocate: pages with tooltips have been used as effectively translcudable, using 'noinclude' and 'onlyinclude' tags. These cases, the rest of the source page is not included ... including that fuller detail. OTOH, context should cover most of these cases almost as well. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC) :::True. But the way it was (and would be) implemented would be the same way the vendor information and other facts not actually part of the item tooltip are displayed; the source would not be displayed on the page it was transcluded to. -- 05:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Autogeneration I've written a script for autogenerating item pages from item ids. It is on my scripts page. -- Cisox (talk - - scripts) 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) :Skiit, that's almost as good as what does. -- 03:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) ::I thought there was probably already something that did this floating around here somewhere. I'll have to look at Foxbot in more depth. -- Cisox (talk - - scripts) 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC) :::KasoBot and FoxBot both create tooltips. IRC is a great place to collaborate with some of the main contributors to the wiki which can help avoid duplicate work. -- 15:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) :Please do be cautious if you decide to use these bots on pages that already exist. You'll almost certainly have to pull some information forward. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Nested tooltips for crafting items I've reverted the inclusion of tooltips for items taught to you by another item -- that inclusion mechanism would not always work; would often look out of place (Lootbox doesn't quite take the same argument as loot); and is generally of questionable desirability. If we really want to include item tooltips in pattern tooltips (do we?), this really needs a lot more work before being merged into the template. -- Starlightblunder 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC) :I admit to not being much in favor of the full-bodied inclusion, myself, even though I've been working on the various engineering items to make them (among other things) more "lootbox accessible" as it were. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Req vs. Skill Seeing as there looks to be confusion about this, i thought i would explain what little i can remember. Req is for a requirement that is not specific to any of the other requirement parameters such as level, skill, class etc. Skill is for professions, riding skills etc. The only things i can still recall that made use of req was things such as "Dragonscale Leatherworking" and other profession specializations. Hope that helps. -- 18:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC) :Correction, based on the order, it all came back to me as i was rewritting this. req= is actually for requirements for meta gems and such. I forgot, and possibly confused by the fact prof= (which is what i was really talking about) is missing from this documentation. -- 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC) |tankarmor= Could we possibly add the following line to the template? This would allow for very easy coloring of the armor for a piece of gear whose armor is listed in green in the in-game tooltip. }| } Thanks! Hekirou 06:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC) : see |bonusarmor= -- 07:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC) ::|bonusarmor= has a very strange effect. It pulls up a mouse-over display showing the +armor value, which is highly pointless. The armor value is also underlined as a result, which seems unnecessary. The worded in the documentation above is also misleading: it suggests we should somehow know the base armor and the bonus armor granted from the item budget. Even if we did somehow know this, however, the tooltip still only displays the |armor= value, and only shows the |bonusarmor= value as part of the mouse-over display. If bonusarmor is provided without armor, nothing is displayed. This is all very much overcomplicated. A simple |tankarmor= with green text would make significantly more sense, I feel. Hekirou 07:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC) :::Would be better if someone just rewrote bonusarmor to replace armor or be a toggle to say armor privded is a bonus value. Then just style it green (why underline?) and display the total there. If done in the first way described, if the base armour is known, then that value could beprovided still and it should be that value that is displayed as a title attribute for it. -- 00:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC) ::::Rewriting would be ideal if it didn't mean hunting down all the current pages which use the field. They could be converted over time if a new parameter was created. I suggested tankarmor, because that is what it is. Bonusarmor suggests, well, a bonus, which is true, but as far as I know, we have know way to find the base or bonus armor for gear. That's why I think a new field altogether is a better idea. Hekirou 21:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC) :::::The simple way to find all the pages which use the field is to add a simple statement adding a certain category to all pages with that parameter. I agree that knowing the amount of extra armor you receive is pointless. --Pcj (T• ) }|time| 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)|}} 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC) :::What you're describing is, actually, the intended effect (nor is the documentation misleading - you got exactly what you should've got out of it). All items get a base allocation of armor for their item level + armor type + item slot (there was a pre-BC formula on WoWWiki, I would imagine there is a BC-compatible one somewhere as well); extra armor comes from the item budget. The current implementation allows three things: compatibility with the old |armor-only syntax (letting |armor always be the full amount of armor the item gives), highlight items with bonus armor itemization (green text etc), as well as telling you how much armor is actually added (tooltip). You could check wowhead for an illustration of how the green text, underline, and tooltip popup should work (incidentially, you can also consult wowhead to determine the value |bonusarmor should have for a specific item). :::Of course, if we want to scale that back to only displaying "does this item have any bonus armor" information, it can be done rather easily by changing |bonusarmor into a flag (requiring no updating for the pages that use it already), and keeping |armor as the main container of the armor value. The code would be shorter, too. -- Starlightblunder 02:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) ::::Odd, I never saw the base/bonus armor on wowhead, just the total. But I can't honestly remembered if I tried mousing over it. Unfortunately, I'm at work right now [so really unfortunate ;)], and wowhead doesn't work on this browser. Personally though, I'm much more in favor of simplifying things, so I'd love to see |bonusarmor turn into a flag only. |armor alone would display the value, and |bonusarmor would make it green. I'm not sure if the amount of bonus over base is particularly important. The simple fact that it is a bonus is what I care about. What do other people think though? Hekirou 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC) ::::The current implementation wasn't for compatibility, and rewriting it would have required just as many changes as the original implementation did. The feature of adding the bonus on mouse over is fine, but in it's current implementation isn't as user friendly as it could be (And yes the documentation is misleading). Admittidly Hekirou's original explanation gave me the wrong idea of what was going on, and i think perhaps he had the wrong idea too. After reviewing the code, only two things really need to change. Change the if check for bonus armour to check first for } (as it currently does) and then again (not nested) for } (for which you check for a fail). This means even if people don't know the bonus armour value it can still be marked with a null one, and done the same way } is. Then just remove the ugly underline styling. Simple. -- 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) :::::It's quite possible that I said things very poorly at the start. When I first suggested tankarmor, I hadn't even noticed bonusarmor. I didn't see it in green in the documentation seeing effect in green made me think that I would, but even when I scanned through all the options, I guess I just overlooked it. When User:Gryphon suggested bonusarmor, I tested it out and found it to be, well, odd. At the time I had no idea why it worked the way it did. As for my suggestion on the code at the very start... well, I understood less about templates at the time than I do now still ain't much ^_^, and was taking a stab at it. Anyway, for what it's worth, I'm in favor of your suggested edits. The big question is... who is capable of editing? :) Hekirou 14:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Just to point out that the changes you've implemented do not act in the way it seems you intended. You've used an #ifeq check to see check for any value (null or otherwise), but in the result you've used " ", which is a check to see if the parameter was specified, not to see if it's null. Thus "Extra" will never be shown, resulting in an output as "+ Armor" instead of the intended "+Extra Armor". To get the desired effect you would need to replace it with an extra #if. Alternatively (and as i suggested), you can use two #if checks instead of the #ifeq and an #if. One to check for null, one to check for non-null (this is how several others are in the code, and how i've implemented the change on my version). -- 07:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC) unique vs. unique-eq Can someone explain the difference between unique= vs. unique-eq=? -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 9:52 PM PST 1 Dec 2007 :unique-eq is "Unique-Equipped", meaning it is only unique in terms of how many you can wear. unique is the normal "Unique", meaning you're limited on how many you can own period. Believe "Unique-Equipped" only appeared with TBC's release, starting with rings, though more and more items using it have appeared since. -- 06:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC) :Like Dazzling Chrysoprase is unique-equipped, so you can have ten of them on ten different pieces of armor, but you can only wear one of those pieces of armor at a time. The Ring of Ghoulish Delight is unique, so even if you do the Call the Headless Horseman quest again next year, you can't get a second one of the rings, and may not even see it as a drop. I know people who picked up one of each of the rings even if they didn't want it, just so they wouldn't get prompted to roll on it anymore. (Basically what Zeal said, just elaborating with examples.) --Azaram 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC) ::Oh hey, unique-eq for gems is gear specific? I thought you could only have one of that gem across your entire gear set. Hekirou 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC) :::You can only where one at a time, but you can have however many you want in items you're not wearing and thus have alternative sets you can switch out with an item nad still have the best gem choices. -- 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |locked= Is it possible to slightly amend the |locked= to display the lockpicking skill value (which was recently added by the game patch)? For example, '|lockpicking=225' would display 'Locked' on the first line and 'Requires Lockpicking (225)' on the second line. Any non-numeric (such as '|lockpicking=Yes') would just show the first 'Locked' line. Sanderdolphin 12:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) :I'm just curious as to how this displays and any changes to "" text, could you possibly get a screenshot please? As to doing this, it should be fairly simple and just an extension of automatically adding "". Once i see a screenshot of it in action, i'll add it to my sandbox version. -- 00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC) ::For non-rogues, a Khorium Lockbox shows like Wowhead's http://www.wowhead.com/?item=31952 display: Khorium Lockbox Locked Requires Lockpicking (325) ::Until it's unlocked, it looks like that. I dunno what it looks like to a rogue, it's one of the two classes I've never played... When it's unlocked, the last two lines are replaced with "". Non-rogues never see the 'right click...' until it's unlocked. Hope that helps, I'm at work so I can't get a screenshot right now, but I'll try if I can later... --Azaram 05:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) :::Thanks Azaram, i'll give it go today. -- 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) :::I've implemented it on my version here. Whether or not someone decides to apply it to this one is another matter. :p :::I ended up making it so the "" display automatically if locked though, as the multiple states of the item's tooltip and who is viewing it should really be a summarised in a tooltip outside the game, such as this because they are unknowns. One thing i couldn't figure out though, was why wowhead display the skill requirement in grey for locked items (as if to say the user does not have it), yet all other requirements (including skills) they display in white (as if to say the user does have them). It's rather inconsistant, so i decided to go with how i initially designed the tooltip, all requirements are displayed as fulfilled (white) except for ones we can determine (socket, socket bonus, set bonus etc.) -- 08:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :::: I'd definitely agree with adding the "to open" text and the level. 18:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :::: Yeah, I hadn't caught the colors. The 'Locked' would be in red for a non-rogue. Probably green for a rogue. The 'requires lockpicking' was in white for my level 6 warrior bank alt, I believe. I don't remember and those boxes are picked and pillaged now... --Azaram 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC) External ID Is it possible to update the tooltip to give links to external sites when given either (or both) of id and itemid parameters? Looking for something similar to that on the Quest tooltip, where at the bottom, if there's an id or itemid parameter, then a See also Wowhead/Thottbot/Allakhazam link is shown. I also note that a lot of tooltip entries already have itemid (and id) so a lot of pages will already have content suitable for such an amendment. Sanderdolphin 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :I don't know about "big" links like for the quest box, because tooltip is largely designed to look like it does in-game, but perhaps adding the symbols for the respective sites (e.g., w,t,a or their Greek counterparts) as links somewhere in the tooltip would work... --Pcj (T• ) }|time| 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)|}} 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :What's wrong with Template:elinks-item? -- Starlightblunder 21:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC) ::Nothing's wrong with it...I think he was meaning quest pages have both and the external links at the bottom of ...maybe he doesn't want to have to scroll to get to external links. --Pcj (T• ) }|time| 21:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)|}} 21:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :::I don't see why quest boxes have the elinks up there in the first place. Every other page has them at the bottom; why shouldn't quests, too? I fully oppose the inclusion of elinks in the tooltip. If tooltips are designed to resemble those in-game, then elinks have no place there. Hekirou 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC) ::::Sounds plausable, keeping them how they look in game. Yes, each one has the ID box at the bottom instead. Would it be possible to get that in automatically, like catagories display at the bottom depending on what's included in the info box (thinking of zones with the quest boxes here), avoiding the need to type in those two lines at the bottom, replacing it with id= in the info box at the top (less typing = happy me) Sanderdolphin 22:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :::::I could be mistaken, but categories are something coded to work auto-magically by the wiki software. Put a category anywhere, and it'll show up in the category list at the bottom. This calls for a template to be put in at the bottom, and I don't think you can do that remotely. Hekirou 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Usage I have noticed that the charges field is used on a number 1-use items where it seems redundant to me (recipes, patterns, etc) but I wanted to get some feedback before not using it for those items where 1 charge is understood by the items nature. —MJBurrage • talk • 14:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC) :These items should not display them (they aren't displayed in game). They are merely there because a bot added them (based off of armory), and the bot cannot distinguish between items which have a charge and do display it and those which have a charge and do not display it. In other words, feel free to remove them from recipe type items. :) --Sky (talk | | wh) 05:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC) New addition Out of curiosity, what is the following for? —MJBurrage(T• ) 23:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC) } |arg= } ::"The template parameters displayed here are required to enable item pages interact with other consumers of tooltip data, and do not change from page to page." :It's mainly for use when we use tooltips somewhere other than the item page itself. If you can read MediaWiki template syntax, take a look at the source of to see exactly what it does. -- 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC) ::Those other consumers are primarily other templates, such as for example : . -- Starlightblunder 08:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC) ::: So should we be using in place of , since the former has a more general name, and is easier to use? (I asked the same question in more detail at Template talk:Item) —MJBurrage(T• ) 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) :::: In most situations you should use . There are a few exceptions - code within and tags on pages should use . -- Starlightblunder 23:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Auto floating The automatic floating doesn't work when the page is outside the main name space. 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC) :Working as intended. It automatically floats to the left when not on an item's page. If you want to change that, simply use float=right -- 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) ::Even if it is a user page? It prevents the tooltip from displaying properly. 01:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC) :::Disambigpage=? o_o --Sky (t | | w) 02:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC) ::::Doesn't work. Go ahead and take a loot at the page I linked. 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC) :::Why "even if it's a user page"? That's not an item's page, the tooltip is not supposed to display in it's full mode on such a page. Using disambigpage= should work, but i don't recommend doing it, as that's not how it was intended to be used. Why apparently all the checks are resulting in false when checking = i don't know. -- 02:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) ::::It is outside the main name space because people are creating fanfic items using . It returns a false because "User:" is being included in the check against , doesn't have the name space included in it. 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) :::::"User:" is not included in the check, no namespace ever is. It checks (which in your case, is "Andern992/Alastar's Judgement", not "User:Andern992/Alastar's Judgement" as you seem to think) against disambigpage= and failing that, name=. I've tested providing the required pagename for both of these parameters, and the check returns false, which it shouldn't. -- 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC) ::::::If "User:" isn't at the start of the disambigpage parameter, it will link to a page that doesn't exist, but floats correctly. if "User:" is in the disambig paramter, it will link to the correct page but will float incorrectly. The problem is it isn't using the name space in the disambig comparison. 02:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC) :::::::FFS, you edited your page while i was testing, that explains why i saw no changes.. wasted all this time : / :::::::Ok, now to properly clarify. Tooltip does not check against a namespace at all, that is where the problem is. disambigpage= is supposed to be a full article title, including namespace, but is being checked against an article name only with . That's why it's failing right now and that's what needs to be fixed. It needs to be changed to check against instead. Hopefully sky will be willing. -- 03:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Green armor text for tanks Calling the above (|tankarmor=), would it be possible to put a line in the template such as |tankarmor= for bonus armor? It's not much that is to add, but it would look nicer to see some items that has additional armor values, such as those for tanking.--'gOurra'T¦ ] 04:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC) : /points at |bonusarmor= --k_d 04:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC) ::Good point, but isn't it a bit unnecessary to have both |armor= and |bonusarmor= to make it appear in green text? (for your information, I tried it on Belt of Natural Power but it wouldn't work with only |bonusarmor=)--'gOurra'T¦ ] 04:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :::tankarmor= straight away makes no sense for a param, as bonus armor is not specific to tanks. The reason why doing it properly requires two params, is because armor is the total and bonus armor is flag to say that it is a bonus armor and if provided, display the exact amount that is bonus when mousing over. There's no real benefit for it being a single param. -- 11:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) ::::But, as being discussed earlier, we would have to know the base armor in order to make the bonus armor to make any sense. How is that possible?--'gOurra'T¦ ] 14:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :::::You do not need to know other values of the base and bonus armor to make it display as bonus armor. armor= is the total, bonusarmor= is a null expanded flag, meaning it can be null or any value to flag the item as having bonus armor, and if a value is provided, it will make use of the the value, in this case, displaying it on mouse over with the title attribute. -- 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) ::::::I understand that, but making it use both armor= and bonusarmor= to work is kind of unnecessary. But I'll drop it now.--'gOurra'T¦ ] 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Conjured items Whatever happened to conjure= --> "Conjured Item"? kinda needs that tag... --k_d 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC) :Something i apparently forgot when i was first checking for how tooltips were contrsucted and what was needed. Needs to be added, yeah. -- 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)